STUNNING REVERSAL: 9th Circuit greenlights Trump administration's efforts to isolate suspected noncitizen ballots



The Trump administration has been cleared Tuesday to demand that election workers set aside and wait on counting ballots cast by suspected noncitizens.

Last month, the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security cautioned election officials about potential criminal liability regarding the counting of ballots cast by suspected noncitizens. In California, this would result in the sequestration of roughly 20,000 mail-in ballots.

Accordingly, the Trump administration can resume telling state election officials to set aside suspect ballots.

Various labor unions and liberal advocacy groups including the Service Employees International Union and the NAACP sued in hopes of blocking the Trump administration's efforts to ensure that foreigners weren't putting their thumbs on the scale of the midterms elections.

U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson, a Biden appointee, obliged the liberal plaintiffs on Friday, blocking the Trump administration from demanding that election officials nationwide not process ballots cast by suspected noncitizens. Her temporary restraining order was to last until Nov. 13.

On Monday, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel put a halt on the Biden judge's temporary restraining order, finding that the government had "established a likelihood of success on the merits."

However, a few hours later, that ruling was vacated and Mary Murguia, an Obama appointee serving as chief judge on the Ninth Circuit, ordered that the case be reheard by a full Ninth Circuit panel — a decision that law professor Jonathan Turley said "hampers the Administration's efforts on election integrity."

In a 6-5 vote decided midway through Election Day, the Ninth Circuit reinstated its earlier ruling lifting the restraining order on the Trump administration. Murguia was among the dissenting judges.

Accordingly, the Trump administration can resume telling state election officials to set aside suspect ballots and telling those officials that failure to do so could result in federal prosecution.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judge TOSSES OUT charges against ex-FBI officials accused of LYING about Hunter Biden laptop — but there's a catch



A federal judge has tossed out the cases against two former Federal Bureau of Investigation officials, accusing the Trump administration of weaponizing the power of government in order to prosecute them.

The Dept. of Justice had sought criminal charges against 46-year-old Nikki Floris and 56-year-old Bradley Benavides on the basis that they had allegedly lied to Congress about the Hunter Biden laptop case.

'What has transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization.'

Both Floris and Benavides had testified in 2023 that they had no part in the investigation into Biden's laptop, but prosecutors cited evidence that both may have discussed the case with other FBI officials.

On Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui dismissed the charges against both defendants.

"What has transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization," said Faruqui.

He said the government could have brought the charges at any time but chose to do so two weeks before the election. He also cited a prime time speech where President Donald Trump aired his grievances about the 2020 election.

"I will not bury my head in the sand and pretend that I cannot read a calendar," Faruqui added.

He accused the government of rushing the prosecution and including "critical mistakes" in their charges.

Floris' attorney had argued in court that his client had been prosecuted in order to influence public opinion for the sake of the election.

Critics of Floris pointed to an unearthed alleged text where she claimed to be "basically running a shadow government" in the FBI.

Both Floris and Benavides had been a part of the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force, which no longer exists but had spearheaded the agency's efforts to oppose foreign influence in the 2020 election.

The Justice Dept. has the option to pursue indictments of both Floris and Benavides through a grand jury.

RELATED: Judge APOLOGIZES to suspected would-be Trump assassin — and compares him to Jan. 6

Faruqui was heavily criticized when he apologized in court to Cole Tomas Allen, the man accused of trying to assassinate Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in April. Cole had been placed on suicide watch and been denied access to a Bible, according to his attorneys.

As a magistrate federal judge, Faruqui was not nominated by a president or approved by the U.S. Senate but selected by the court in Washington, D.C.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

2 Dan Sullivans, 1 Alaska ballot, and a very dirty trick



Even if Mary Peltola wins Alaska's Senate race on Tuesday, I encourage Americans not to view her as a legitimate U.S. senator. That is her fault, and she and her party will have to live with it.

For years, the left hectored Americans about "attacks on democracy." It built networks of groups with names like the Democracy Defenders Fund. A feeble Joe Biden stood in the Capitol and accused his opponents of holding "a dagger at the throat of America," then delivered a prime-time speech in Philadelphia against a blood-red backdrop. Under that banner, the Biden administration and its apparatchiks destroyed lives, jailed people, and attacked reputations and livelihoods. To them, casting doubt on an election was the greatest sin imaginable, deserving severe punishment — fair process be damned.

Given what we now know, no Peltola victory should be called legitimate. The count may be certified in her favor when the dust settles, but there will forever be an asterisk next to her name.

What is happening in Alaska shreds whatever credibility that crusade had left.

Underhanded gamesmanship and dirty tricks are as old as politics. This is not that. A New York Times investigation, drawing on a dozen sources, text messages, and internal documents, describes an elaborate operation involving Peltola campaign aides, lawyers, and staffers at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The purpose was to confuse voters by recruiting another Dan Sullivan to appear on the ballot alongside the actual Republican incumbent, Senator Dan S. Sullivan.

The Times, no friend to conservatives, quoted Peltola's former campaign manager, Elisa Rios, saying Peltola herself was "definitely aware." Rios later sought to retract her remarks. Peltola denies knowing about the operation. But the messages and documents reported by the Times cannot be waved away with a press release.

When it comes to dirty tricks, this is a difference in kind, not merely degree. The victim isn't just the real Dan Sullivan. It is the voters and the electoral system itself. The Justice Department amended its lawsuit to incorporate the Times reporting. Alaska's governor ordered an investigation, and House Republicans opened a probe of their own.

On Sunday, a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department's lawsuit, finding that the government lacked standing and had proposed no workable way to examine ballots without compromising voter secrecy. The department plans to appeal. The dismissal resolves neither the Times' reporting nor the underlying question of who arranged the scheme.

Recall that the Biden Justice Department prosecuted my friend Douglass Mackey over an election meme. When Mackey was sentenced, Biden's U.S. attorney in Brooklyn declared:

One of the foundational rights we hold as Americans, a right that many fought so hard to obtain, is the right to vote. The defendant weaponized disinformation in a dangerous scheme to stop targeted groups, including black and brown people and women, from participating in our democracy. ... This groundbreaking prosecution demonstrates our commitment to prosecuting those who commit crimes that threaten our democracy and seek to deprive people of their constitutional right to vote.

The government never produced a single voter who was tricked out of casting a ballot. In July 2025, the Second Circuit unanimously overturned Mackey’s conviction and ordered an acquittal because prosecutors had failed to prove he knowingly joined the alleged conspiracy.

RELATED: Alaska may ‘stop’ election certification due to alleged Democratic ‘Decoy Dan’ scheme: Governor

Nathaniel Wilder/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The Biden Justice Department’s certainty about Mackey far outran its proof. Yet the language of its denunciation describes the Peltola operation perfectly. Our constitutional republic depends on an informed and virtuous citizenry. Recruiting a candidate to mislead that citizenry is beyond the pale and devoid of virtue.

A few hundred confused voters could decide a Senate race. And in this contest, a few hundred votes could help decide control of the chamber.

Democrats have largely minimized the matter or said nothing. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who personally courted Peltola into this race, had a spokeswoman say he knew nothing of the scheme and wasn't involved. Notice what that statement leaves out: any suggestion that it was wrong. The DSCC's response was to change the subject to Republicans.

For five years, the left insisted that silence in the face of election lies is complicity. Fine. By their own standard, the Peltola campaign's conduct attaches to the Democratic Party's political apparatus, especially given the reported involvement of its Senate campaign committee. Every one of them should have to answer for it.

RELATED: Republicans keep losing because they won’t take hostages

Jacquelyn Martin - Pool/Getty Images

But we shouldn't let Lisa Murkowski off the hook either. Although the Republican senator has now condemned the scheme, she helped create the conditions for it.

In 2020, Alaska abandoned its traditional partisan primaries for a top-four "jungle" primary and ranked-choice general elections. Under ranked-choice voting, the candidate leading in first-choice votes can lose as the lowest finishers are eliminated and their ballots transfer to voters' next choices. The top-four primary is how the other Sullivan made the November ballot.

The whole arrangement was designed to insulate Murkowski from a primary challenge, and her longtime political operatives helped put it in place. Scott Kendall, a leading architect, had worked on her campaigns. A campaign manager for the ballot measure later worked on communications for Murkowski's 2022 re-election. Alaska Democrats even derided it as the "Lisa Law." It is inside this system that the deception documented by the Times can do damage.

Recall that Murkowski endorsed Peltola for the House twice and went out of her way to praise her character.

Given what we now know, no Peltola victory should be called legitimate. The count may be certified in her favor when the dust settles, but there will forever be an asterisk next to her name. This sinister plot was designed to sow confusion in Alaska's elections. The people who ran it don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, and neither does any Democrat who refuses to condemn it.

NY Times exposes Alaska Democrat's alleged hunt for another Dan Sullivan to run against Republican



Democrat Senate candidate Mary Peltola's campaign has been credibly accused of engaging in a scheme to unseat Alaska Sen. Dan S. Sullivan (R).

Citing interviews with 12 people who were involved or told about the alleged scheme along with text messages and documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the Peltola campaign, the New York Times reported that top Peltola campaign aides told staffers last year: "Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can."

'Mary Peltola and her campaign have spent months gaslighting Alaskans, denying a scheme they were running all along.'

The apparent aim of this scheme was to stir up confusion when it came time for Alaskans to vote and possibly siphon votes away from the incumbent Republican in the general election.

One staffer allegedly scoured voter records to find potential candidates with the namesake — and these alleged efforts paid off.

Daniel J. Sullivan of Petersburg, a retired teacher who was born in the Midwest, reportedly registered as a Republican earlier this year and entered the race to oust Sen. Dan S. Sullivan on May 29, just before the deadline for filing.

Sen. Dan S. Sullivan suspected something was amiss about his new challenger's campaign from the outset, telling CNN in May that J. Sullivan's candidacy was effectively a Democrat effort to "cheat."

RELATED: Exclusive: Control of the Senate hangs in the balance — Republicans are fighting to win

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The senator said, "Democrats recruited a guy by the name of Dan Sullivan. He is a liberal progressive, right? We've seen it — his donations to all the far-left groups. He's donated to Peltola, OK? And his whole purpose of running is to confuse Alaskans."

In its June complaint regarding J. Sullivan's candidacy to the Federal Election Commission, National Republican Senatorial Committee general counsel Blake Murphy noted that:

  • J. Sullivan's campaign logo and website "closely mimics" that of Sen. S. Sullivan's campaign branding;
  • J. Sullivan has donated to Peltola;
  • the press release promoting J. Sullivan's candidacy for Senate was authored by Amber Lee, a Democratic consultant and Peltola supporter; and
  • FEC records show that Amber Lee Strategies has received thousands of dollars for "PAC Strategy Consulting" from a federal PAC that has supported Peltola.

KTOO-TV reported that J. Sullivan has shed his Republican affiliation and is going into the general election as an undeclared candidate.

According to the Times, the ballot-stacking scheme was intentional and involved:

The endeavor, which was internally called the ballot composition project, involved secret trips to far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs.

In addition to senior aides and lowly staffers on the campaign, the Times alleged that the scheme involved lawyers from Peltola's Senate campaign and Democrat operatives, as well as aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

“Alaskans deserve to know the truth," Sen. Dan S. Sullivan said in a statement to Blaze News. "Mary Peltola, her campaign, and her senior advisers colluded with the DSCC, national Democrat lawyers, and Alaska Democrat operatives to recruit a candidate to deliberately deceive and confuse voters and then repeatedly lied about it. Not one player in this operation has acted in good faith with Alaska voters."

Sen. S. Sullivan added, "Mary Peltola and her campaign have spent months gaslighting Alaskans, denying a scheme they were running all along. We always knew this was a concerted effort to deceive voters, and Mary Peltola was hoping it would stay hidden until after the election."

The Peltola campaign said in a statement to Blaze News, "The Alaskans for Mary campaign has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign. Like Mary, our campaign is focused on lowering costs and fixing the rigged system in D.C."

Her campaign told the Times, "The Alaskans for Mary campaign has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign and did not recruit any candidates into the race." The DSCC similarly denied involvement in the alleged scheme.

Elisa Rios, Peltola's former campaign manager who was fired in August, told the Times that while the Democrat — who allegedly wished death by a "botched abortion" on a woman — was not directly involved in the alleged ballot-stacking scheme, she was "definitely aware."

"Alaskan voters need to know," said Rios. "There was a lot of speculation, and voters should get the full picture when making their decisions."

Rios later attempted to retract her previous statements to the Times, which the Times published anyway, never having agreed that the interviews were off the record.

The allegations have prompted outrage among some Republicans.

"Two terms in Congress. Zero bills signed into law. But she found time to hunt down every Dan Sullivan in Alaska," tweeted Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). "Control of the Senate goes through Alaska. Let's elect the REAL Dan Sullivan."

Sen. Tom Cottom (R-Ark.) tweeted, "This is a direct scheme to undermine the integrity of the election."

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit last week seeking to block the certification of the election results if Dan J. Sullivan's involvement has a material impact on S. Sullivan's performance.

The DOJ noted in its lawsuit that many polls indicate that the race between Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and Peltola "will be within one or two percentage points, and Daniel J. Sullivan received 2.5% of the vote in the primary election. Thus, there is a realistic chance that even if a majority of Alaskans wish to vote for Senator Sullivan, Daniel J. Sullivan's presence on the ballot will result in a victory for Peltola."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Obama judge orders Trump DOJ to retroactively reinstate Comey's daughter as federal prosecutor



An Obama-appointed federal judge ruled on Monday that while Trump's attorney general and those with the delegated responsibility are "authorized by law" to fire a federal prosecutor, the way in which the daughter of disgraced ex-FBI Director James Comey was fired last year was unlawful.

Maurene Comey served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York for nearly a decade and was involved in the prosecutions of Sean "Diddy" Combs, convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.

'This decision reaffirms our bedrock system of checks and balances.'

Francey Hakes, the director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, notified Comey on July 16, 2025, that "pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States," her employment with the Justice Department had been terminated.

In September 2025, Comey sued the Trump administration, alleging that her termination was "unlawful and unconstitutional" and "politically motivated" — the result of her connection to James Comey and/or "her perceived political affiliation and beliefs." According to her complaint, she was removable only for cause under the Civil Service Reform Act.

The government argued that:

  • Comey was removable at-will under Article II by the attorney general "because plaintiff in her duties as an assistant United States attorney exercised the president’s conclusive and preclusive executive authority";
  • "Congress has by statute explicitly authorized the attorney general to remove assistant United States attorneys"; and
  • that statute "contains no restrictions on the attorney general's removal powers."

RELATED: DOJ opens investigation into ex-Trump aide Corey Lewandowski

Win McNamee/Getty Images

U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, evidently was not swayed by the government's arguments. He ruled on Monday that Comey's "removal was not authorized by any statute; to the contrary, it violated the CSRA."

While conceding that the attorney general can remove an AUSA, Furman wrote that "the attorney general (and anyone to whom the attorney general delegates that authority) is also limited by law, namely the CSRA, to do so only in a particular manner and only for certain reasons."

"The Court holds that Comey is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her central claims that she was terminated in violation of the constitutional separation of powers and federal law," continued the Obama judge.

Furman ordered Comey's retroactive reinstatement and backpay effective from her termination in July through Dec. 20, 2025, when the ex-prosecutor apparently found a new job.

Comey's lawyers said in a joint statement, "This hard-earned victory belongs to Ms. Comey, to all civil servants, and to all fighting for the rule of law."

"As the Court correctly held, to accept the government’s argument about unlimited executive power 'would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this nation’s constitutional system,'" continued the lawyers. "This decision reaffirms our bedrock system of checks and balances: the president is not above the law."

The White House referred Blaze News to the following statement from the Justice Department's rapid response account: "The Department disagrees with this decision, which obstructs President Trump’s constitutional authority to fire individuals who wield executive power on his behalf. We intend to appeal the decision in due course."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

California says ‘trust us’ on voter eligibility. Why?



It should be utterly embarrassing that the United States, a global leader in cutting-edge technology, still has election practices that are no better than those in many third-world nations. Election officials in Los Angeles recently admitted in federal court that they possess no independent means of verifying whether the people on their voter rolls are U.S. citizens. They simply take the voter’s word for it.

The Justice Department this week charged 28 noncitizens in the Golden State with election crimes, including voting. Eleven of the defendants were arrested.

The evidence that noncitizens appear on rolls and sometimes vote is no longer theoretical.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter’s response was direct: “This Department of Justice will not look the other way while noncitizens vote in federal elections. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for California and L.A. County.”

Governor Gavin Newsom’s office replied that California follows the National Voter Registration Act’s 1990s self-attestation rules. That is precisely the problem. The law that currently governs federal registration treats citizenship as a matter of personal declaration rather than documentary fact. In a state with millions of noncitizens, that is an invitation for error at best and fraud at worst.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act was written to close the gap by requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register and photo identification to vote. Currently stalled in the Senate, the SAVE Act is not radical. It is the minimum standard most other developed democracies already enforce. Its failure to become law is not the result of technical mystery. It is the result of political choice.

The evidence that noncitizens appear on rolls and sometimes vote is no longer theoretical.

A reported software glitch in New Jersey added roughly 6,600 self-declared noncitizens to the rolls. The state's later review found that about 340 cast ballots. Iowa’s secretary of state identified 277 noncitizens registered; 35 of them cast ballots counted in the 2024 election. Ohio found 137 people who had twice confirmed noncitizenship to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and were on the rolls anyway. A grand jury indicted several for illegal voting across multiple cycles.

RELATED: Kamala’s voter-roll freakout hits blue states hard

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Federal prosecutors continue to bring cases — 16 aliens charged in North Carolina, New York, and Idaho for illegal voting and false claims of citizenship, among others. These are not internet rumors. They are findings by secretaries of state and federal charging documents.

Critics respond that the numbers are small relative to total ballots and have never swung a statewide or national election. That is true in most races and irrelevant to the principle. Every illegal vote cancels a legal one. In close local contests — school boards, city councils, state legislative seats — a few dozen votes can decide outcomes.

When California is handed a list of 20,000 suspected cases and declines to sequester the ballots or conduct a prompt, transparent review, it is not protecting election integrity. It is prioritizing the administrative convenience of self-attestation over the statutory requirement that only citizens vote in federal elections.

Officials who minimize the issue are part of the problem. Newsom’s office described the 28 California charges as “0.0001% of California voters” and argued that raising the issue near an election “sows distrust.” Meanwhile, Los Angeles County attorneys have called the federal list “unreliable” and said there is “no basis” for the claim of widespread problems.

Election administrators in other states also try to muddy the waters, saying that noncitizen voting is “vanishingly rare,” “infinitesimal,” or so uncommon that aggressive verification is unnecessary. These statements treat any documented instance as a rounding error rather than a violation of law.

RELATED: Republicans cannot serve two masters on immigration

Kent NISHIMURA/AFP via Getty Images

The remedy is straightforward and has been long available. Documentary proof of citizenship at registration closes the self-attestation loophole. Photo identification at the polls confirms that the person casting the ballot matches the registrant. Systematic comparison of voter rolls against federal immigration databases, followed by prompt removal of confirmed noncitizens, keeps the lists clean.

States that have implemented elements of this approach — Wyoming, Kansas, and others — have not collapsed into chaos. The extra administrative work is well worth the price of a system in which citizenship is a prerequisite rather than a suggestion.

Immigration enforcement does not stop at the border. It includes the recognition that the right to vote is reserved for citizens. When officials treat noncitizen registration and voting as an acceptable residual cost of motor-voter convenience, they are making a policy choice that dilutes the franchise of the people who live under the laws those votes enact.

Election integrity is not a mystery. It requires the political courage to require proof, to clean the rolls, and to pass the SAVE Act. The alternative is continued reliance on trust alone in a system that California’s own federal prosecutor has shown cannot verify the most basic eligibility requirement. Citizens are entitled to better.

DOJ opens investigation into ex-Trump aide Corey Lewandowski



The Justice Department is reviewing allegations that Corey Lewandowski, a former top adviser to then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, used his power for personal financial gain.

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General referred its investigation of Lewandowski to the Justice Department after examining his role in the DHS' $220 million advertising campaign. The probe later widened to allegations that Lewandowski shook down a company pursuing government contracts while he served as Noem's top adviser.

'If they're not going to be honest, they have to be prosecuted.'

Lewandowski has not been charged with a crime related to this investigation and denies wrongdoing.

The allegations involve personal financial profit tied to contracts established during Noem's tenure as DHS secretary, a source told CBS News. The OIG shared its findings with the Justice Department in recent weeks. Fox News described the referral as "criminal."

Lewandowski served at the DHS as a special government employee and acted as Noem's senior adviser and de facto chief of staff. He left the department in March after President Donald Trump removed Noem as secretary following questions about her lavish spending and Lewandowski's role in choosing contractors.

Current DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin testified at his March confirmation hearing that the inspector general was reviewing the advertising contract.

RELATED: Slotkin's lawfare warning will outlast Trump

Getty Images

The probe is also examining allegations that Lewandowski demanded money from GEO Group, a company pursuing unrelated government contracts, in exchange for lobbying for its interests in Washington.

A Lewandowski spokesperson denied that account in March.

"This is absolutely false and did not happen — Mr. Lewandowski never demanded any payment or compensation from the GEO Group, at any time," the spokesperson said.

Noem publicly acknowledged that she personally approved the ad contracts and said Trump was aware of her involvement. Trump said otherwise after her removal.

"I wasn't thrilled with it," Trump told reporters at the time. "I spent less money than that to become president. I didn't know about it."

Under Noem, contracts, grants, and funding obligations above $100,000 required her personal written approval, according to CBS. Some officials said the policy created significant backlogs, especially within the Federal Emergency Management Agency and disaster relief funding generally.

Trump addressed the investigation Thursday.

"I heard something about it, but I don't know exactly what it is," Trump told reporters. "All I know is I want my people to be honest, and if they're not going to be honest, they have to be prosecuted."

"I will never do anything to stop the prosecution of someone who's dishonest," Trump said.

He went farther in remarks reported by Fox News.

"They are stealing from me," Trump said. "So I want my people to be honest. And if they're not honest, I'll have my DOJ go and do whatever they have to do."

Lewandowski's attorney, Adam Trigg, responded in a statement posted to Lewandowski's X account.

"Mr. Lewandowski has not been contacted by the Justice Department regarding any investigation, and he denies any wrongdoing when he was proudly serving his country in a voluntary capacity," Trigg said.

Longtime Trump ally Roger Stone weighed in on X.

"I hired him. Probably the biggest mistake I ever made. He's a talentless piece of human garbage."

Lewandowski managed Trump's 2016 presidential campaign until he was fired that June. He later advised Trump's 2020 and 2024 campaigns.

No inspector general report has been made public.

The Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and Lewandowski's lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Who wants to be a millionaire? Trump issues nationwide bounty on fraudsters



The Trump administration has deployed a new weapon in the war on fraud: vigilant Americans.

Last week, Vice President JD Vance called on citizens to join him in "taking the pledge to protect Americans from fraudsters" and to condition support for political candidates on their willingness to similarly make this commitment.

'Going to keep a lot of people honest.'

Joined in the Oval Office on Tuesday by Vance and other members of what he dubbed the "untouchables," President Donald Trump wedded an incentive program to this anti-fraud campaign.

Under the new Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program, citizen whistleblowers, including journalists, can receive a bounty ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 for information leading to criminal fraud charges as well as a potential 1% commission for recovered funds.

"If it's $10 million, $200 million, $400 million — we're giving a 1% commission to that person," said Trump.

The president noted further that in the event of a dispute over who deserves a particular bounty, he will weigh in as arbitrator.

The Justice Department said that whereas most existing government whistleblower programs don't issue rewards until after the criminal matters are resolved, this program "rewards whistleblowers at a much earlier stage of prosecution."

RELATED: Trump administration breaks record cleaning up Social Security files in HUGE fraud-prevention move

President Donald Trump shakes hands with Nick Shirley. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images.

Whistleblowers are asked to go to america.gov/fraud and submit tips pertaining to federal health care offenses or fraud on programs or benefits administered by federal agencies. Tips are reviewed by the Treasury Department, then referred to the relevant federal office. If the information leads to charges or the recovery of money stolen by fraudsters, qualifying whistleblowers may be rewarded for their efforts.

Trump said that this program "is going to keep a lot of people honest."

Vance said that the program already has one bounty claimant: investigative journalist Nick Shirley.

The president celebrated Shirley's successful efforts to expose fraud, including the unflattering light he shone on alleged fraud in the now-infamous Quality Learing Center and other taxpayer-subsidized, Somali-run day-care facilities in Minnesota.

"Partially as a result of Nick's work, since I took office, 115 Minnesota fraudsters have been arrested and charged," said Trump.

The president further highlighted that Shirley's efforts to date have been so effective that "California recently passed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, an outrageous attempt to crush free speech and to stop the corruption from being exposed."

The young man is reportedly getting a $10,000 bounty for his efforts.

"The Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program (WHIP) offers everyone the opportunity to be part of the solution, help expose fraud, and be rewarded quickly for their efforts," Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. "I urge all Americans to use this program and play an active role in bringing fraudsters to justice."

"From day one of my administration, we've waged an unprecedented war on corruption and fraud, and will not let our country be looted and plundered by thieves, and pirates, and foreign fraudsters — and, basically, scum," said Trump.

According to the White House, an estimated $260.7 billion in fraud has been uncovered since January 2025 and $72 billion in fraud has been stopped per year as the result of actions taken by the administration.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Berkeley set out to defend DEI — and found no financial upside



A new study meant to reassure corporations about diversity, equity, and inclusion programs has delivered an awkward finding for DEI advocates: Keeping the programs produced no measurable financial advantage over abandoning them.

Researchers at the University of California in Berkeley compared S&P 500 companies that maintained DEI after President Trump’s January 2025 executive order with companies that scaled back their commitments. Firms that kept their programs performed about as well in stock returns and revenue as those that retreated.

Whether a company favors DEI or rejects it, executives cannot assume that a politically popular label will protect conduct that violates anti-discrimination law.

The authors and sympathetic news coverage emphasized the other half of that result: Companies could keep DEI without suffering a significant financial penalty. CBS News framed the finding that way, as did a subsequent Forbes analysis. But the conclusion cuts both ways. If companies paid no price for keeping DEI, they also paid no price for dropping it.

For investors, that raises a straightforward question: Where is the financial return from DEI?

The researchers found no statistically significant revenue or stock market advantage from maintaining the programs during the period they examined. Their paper reports an estimated effect on revenue close to zero. That does not prove every DEI initiative is worthless. It does mean this study offers no measurable payoff for the policies its authors defend.

DEI advocates have spent years insisting that diversity improves the bottom line. McKinsey’s influential reports linked leadership diversity with financial outperformance. But a 2024 reanalysis of its findings failed to reproduce statistically significant relationships using U.S. public-company data. A 2025 review found the broader empirical case considerably less certain than the confident corporate sales pitches suggest.

Companies that believe particular DEI practices improve performance should identify those practices and produce evidence that their gains are real and repeatable. The obligation to prove the promised return belongs to the people making the promise.

Even a demonstrated financial benefit would not settle whether a practice is ethical or lawful. The moral defense of DEI deserves scrutiny too. A corporate policy that uses race or sex to distribute opportunity may generate its own grievances, regardless of the language used to promote it.

Employment discrimination complaints have hardly disappeared. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 88,201 new charges in fiscal year 2025, roughly level with the previous year and substantially above 2021. Those figures alone cannot tell us how many complaints involved DEI. They do underscore why employers should examine the legal consequences of their hiring and promotion rules.

The Berkeley paper also reveals an unmistakable political perspective. It refers to the Trump administration as a “regime,” discusses what its authors regard as “democratic erosion,” and describes the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and George Floyd collectively as “murders.” It suggests that organized corporate resistance can hinder the consolidation of executive power.

RELATED: Nikole Hannah-Jones learned the hard way what ruins schools

Paras Griffin/Getty Images

Those judgments do not, by themselves, invalidate the statistical analysis. They do help explain the argument the authors want their findings to support: Corporations should feel free to maintain DEI as an expression of political and moral commitment, even without a measurable financial gain.

But companies face risks beyond the market response measured in the study. Public controversy can damage a brand, and legal enforcement can carry a steep price.

Consider Cracker Barrel’s 2025 rebranding backlash. Critics connected its logo redesign to broader complaints about the company’s “woke” direction. By mid-September, its shares had fallen nearly 16% since the August announcement, customer traffic had weakened, and the company had reversed course. A logo controversy is not a controlled test of DEI policy. It is a reminder that political and cultural backlash can have financial consequences.

The federal government has supplied a more direct warning. In April, IBM agreed to pay more than $17 million to resolve Justice Department allegations involving discriminatory employment practices and federal contracting. Deloitte settled for $21.5 million in August, and Accenture agreed to pay $25 million in September to resolve similar allegations. The settlements resolved government claims without findings of liability, but the costs were real.

The Justice Department also issued guidance outlining its view of unlawful discriminatory practices tied to federal funding. Whether a company favors DEI or rejects it, executives cannot assume that a politically popular label will protect conduct that violates anti-discrimination law.

The Berkeley study shows that companies maintaining DEI suffered no detectable financial penalty in the period examined. It also fails to establish a financial reward. Advocates who want shareholders, employees, and customers to support these programs still owe them a case grounded in performance, ethics, and law. That case cannot rest on assurances that DEI is harmless.

News outlets boycotting pool report might have violated US law, Justice Department says



The ongoing feud between the mainstream media and the Trump administration has opened up another field of battle after the Justice Department confirmed a criminal investigation.

Five news outlets rebelled against the White House after President Donald Trump banned three outlets for what he said was fake news reporting.

'Group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act.'

ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Fox News said in a joint statement in September that they would not resume their pool reporting duties to cover the president.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice said five news outlets were under investigation after they boycotted the White House pool report.

"Members of the television press pool have boycotted covering White House events. Group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act," the spokesperson said. "The Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws."

Trump attorneys argued previously in a filing that the three outlets had failed to meet basic "standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex."

The president elaborated on the ban in comments to reporters.

RELATED: Trump slams 'sick, treasonous, and demented' journalists after berating CNN's Kaitlan Collins

"I don't want them in my office. I don't want them here," Trump said.

"The ban is because they are fake news, they cannot write the truth," he added. "If they had credibility, I wouldn't be sitting here right now."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!